R & B Fishing Ltd. et al. v. Canada, (1986) 1 F.T.R. 305 (TD)

• Judge: Dube, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 1 F.T.R. 305 (TD)

R&B Fishing Ltd. v. Can. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 305 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

R & B Fishing Company Limited and Blair Pearl v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

(T-2503-85)

Indexed As: R & B Fishing Ltd. et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dube, J.

January 27, 1986.

Summary:

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the federal Crown for a declaration that the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean's program of season deferral and trap limitation for the years 1986 and 1987 was invalid and for an injunction restraining the Crown from announcing and proceeding with such a program. The plaintiffs applied pursuant to Federal Court Rule 465(18) for an order that two Crown employees answer certain questions asked at the examination for discovery. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ruled accordingly on which questions should be answered.

Practice - Topic 4252

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Questions related to issues between the parties - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ordered a witness at an examination for discovery to answer questions which sought the production of relevant documents that were not privileged and ordered the witness to answer other relevant questions - The court held that questions which were not relevant or sought opinions need not be answered.

Practice - Topic 4256

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Opinion - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the purpose of discovery is not to solicit opinions but to obtain facts from the other party - The court continued: "jurisprudence has provided only one exception: it is permissible to seek opinions at discovery where the expertise of the witness is put in issue by the pleadings." - See paragraphs 9, 10 - Where the expertise of a witness was not in issue, the court held that a witness was not required to answer questions which sought opinions.

Practice - Topic 4263

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Production of documents on examination - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ordered a witness at an examination for discovery to answer questions which sought the production of relevant documents that were not shown to be privileged - See paragraph 5.

Cases Noticed:

Western Electric Co. et al. v. Baldwin Int'l Radio of Canada Ltd., [1934] 4 D.L.R. 129, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Irish Shipping Ltd. and Leslie Arthur Davis Jones et al., [1976] 1 F.C. 418, refd to. [para. 10].

Rivtow Straits Ltd. v. B.C. Marine Shipbuilders Ltd., [1977] 1 F.C. 735; 14 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 10].

Corning Glass Works v. Canada Wire & Cable Co. Ltd. et al. (1983), 74 C.P.R.(2d) 105, refd to. [para. 10].

Sperry Corporation v. John Deere Ltd. et al. (1984), 82 C.P.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, Rule 465(18) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Millar, for the plaintiffs;

W.M. Scarth, Q.C., for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Russell, DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiffs;

Frank Iacobucci, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, for the defendant.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 20, 1986, before Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on January 27, 1986: